Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Insights from the "Red devil" AT 2022fpx: A Dust-reddened Family of Tidal Disruption Events Excluded by Their Apparent Red Color?

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A red nuclear transient challenges the blue-color test used to find tidal disruption events, and suggests published TDE energies may be underestimated.

desk verdict Solid data-rich study of AT 2022fpx; the four-object SED comparison is a useful systematic result, but the dusty-TDE selection-effect claim rests on a fragile single-object dust correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04834 v2 pith:JRM7E7QR submitted 2025-07-07 astro-ph.HE

Zheyu Lin , Ning Jiang , Yibo Wang , Xu Kong , Shifeng Huang , Zesen Lin , Chen Qin , Tianyu Xia This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsbluecolorcriteriondustreddeningBalmerdecrementspectralenergydistributionblackbodyfittingselectioneffectsnucleartransients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the widely used 'blue color' criterion for identifying optical tidal disruption events (TDEs) is not a neutral selection cut but may systematically exclude genuine TDEs whose light is heavily dust-reddened or contaminated by strong emission lines such as $\mathrm{H}\alpha$. Using the persistently red nuclear transient AT 2022fpx as a test case, the authors show that applying an extinction of about $A_V = 1.14$ mag, derived from its Balmer decrement, turns the source into a blue TDE-like object with a typical TDE blackbody temperature. They extend the argument to four well-observed TDEs, finding that including ultraviolet bands raises fitted blackbody temperatures by 40–110% and that power-law models fit the optical–UV SEDs better than blackbodies. The conclusion is that the blue-color selection effect may be imprinted on the whole optical TDE family, and that blackbody-derived energies for optical–UV bright but X-ray faint TDEs are significantly lower than the intrinsic energies.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Balmer decrement as a dust-extinction gauge: the observed $\mathrm{H}\alpha/\mathrm{H}\beta$ ratio of $\approx4$-$5$, compared with the Case B intrinsic value of 2.62, yields the extinction $A_V\approx1.14$-$1.73$ mag through a Fitzpatrick (1999) law with $R_V=3.1$. Applying this correction is what turns AT 2022fpx's red continuum blue and anchors the claim that the blue-color criterion filters out dust-reddened TDEs. A second, supporting mechanism is the comparison of blackbody fits versus power-law fits ($f_\lambda\propto\lambda^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha\approx2$-$3$) applied to optical-only and optical–UV SEDs of AT 2022fpx and four comparison TDEs; this exposes the sensitivity of inferred temperatures and energies to the wavelength coverage and to the assumed SED shape.

What would settle it

A decisive test would measure Balmer decrements and continuum colors in a sample of optically selected TDEs with both red and blue colors, using high signal-to-noise spectroscopy that resolves the Balmer jump. If red TDEs consistently show intrinsic $\mathrm{H}\alpha/\mathrm{H}\beta$ ratios above Case B values in the absence of measurable dust, the reddening interpretation would fail. Alternatively, a UV observation of AT 2022fpx at wavelengths below 2000 Å would test whether the SED continues to rise as a power law rather than turning over as a blackbody; if the UV flux is far below the power-law extrapolation, the energy-undercount argument would be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the steady blue color ($g-r<0$) used to select optical TDEs filters out a population of otherwise normal TDEs whose optical–UV spectral energy distributions are either heavily dust-reddened or severely contaminated by prominent emission lines, especially $\mathrm{H}\alpha$. For AT 2022fpx, whose $g-r\approx0.4$ and whose $\mathrm{H}\alpha/\mathrm{H}\beta$ ratio rises from $\approx4$ to $\approx5$, a Case B intrinsic ratio of 2.62 with a Milky Way extinction law implies $A_V\approx1.14$-$1.73$ mag; correcting for this extinction makes the color blue and brings the SED shape into the TDE family. The authors also show that for four well-sampled TDEs, fitting blackbodies with and without UV bands gives temperatures that differ by roughly 40–110%, while power-law models $f_\lambda\propto\lambda^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha\approx2$-$3$ fit the rest-frame 2000–7000 Å SEDs more consistently. They conclude that the optical–UV SEDs of these TDEs peak shortward of 2000 Å and are not simple blackbodies, so energies estimated from blackbody fits are systematically underestimated.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument depends on the assumption that the observed $\mathrm{H}\alpha/\mathrm{H}\beta$ ratio of about 4–5 is caused by dust extinction of an intrinsic Case B ratio of 2.62; if the line-emitting gas has a higher intrinsic ratio, or if the nuclear dust follows a different extinction law, the red color of AT 2022fpx could be intrinsic, and the main observational support for the selection-effect claim would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Optical TDE samples selected by blue color are biased against dusty and line-contaminated events, which would affect inferred TDE rates and host-galaxy demographics.
  • Published blackbody-derived energies for optical–UV bright but X-ray faint TDEs are likely lower than the intrinsic radiated energy; including UV photometry or fitting power laws raises the estimates.
  • If AT 2022fpx is a dust-reddened TDE, it extends the observable TDE parameter space to redder colors and adds support for the reprocessing scenario in which X-ray and EUV photons are converted to optical and mid-infrared emission.
  • The fading of the broad Balmer lines in future spectra, if observed, would favor a TDE origin over a turn-on AGN, offering a practical discriminating test.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same selection effect could bias comparisons of TDE rates between host-galaxy types, since dust-rich, star-forming, or AGN-hosting nuclei are more likely to hide red TDEs.
  • If the optical–UV SEDs of TDEs are genuinely power-law like down to at least 2000 Å, then multi-band UV surveys could distinguish TDEs from other nuclear transients more reliably than optical colors alone.
  • A testable extension: searches for TDEs using mid-infrared dust echoes, rather than optical color, should find a population of redder, more extinguished events with soft X-ray spectra similar to AT 2022fpx.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents multiwavelength observations of the nuclear transient AT 2022fpx, including optical, UV, X-ray, and mid-infrared light curves and seven optical spectra. It argues that a supernova origin is unlikely, leaves a turn-on AGN and a dust-reddened tidal disruption event (TDE) as equally plausible explanations, and then uses the red optical color together with a Balmer-decrement dust correction to argue that the standard optical 'blue color' TDE selection criterion may filter out dusty or line-contaminated TDEs. The paper also fits optical and UV SEDs of AT 2022fpx and four well-observed TDEs with blackbody and power-law models, concluding that power-law models describe the near-peak SEDs better and that blackbody-based energy estimates for optical-UV-bright, X-ray-faint TDEs may be systematically low. The analysis is data-rich and the authors are candid about the classification ambiguity, but the family-level selection-effect claim rests on a fragile dust correction for a single, ambiguously classified source.

Significance. If the two headline claims were established, they would matter for TDE demographics and energetics: optically selected TDE samples could be biased against dusty and line-contaminated events, and published blackbody-derived TDE energies could be underestimated. The paper is honest in stating that AT 2022fpx is equally consistent with a turn-on AGN flare or a heavily dust-attenuated TDE, and it provides detailed data reduction with stated software versions and explicit error treatment, including stacked X-ray spectra and a careful host-galaxy SED decomposition. The comparative SED analysis of four TDEs is also a useful contribution. However, the central inference about a dust-reddened TDE family is not yet supported: it depends on a single source whose dust screen is inferred from a Balmer decrement that evolves with time, whose dereddened SED fits become worse rather than better, and whose implied absorbing column is never tested in the X-ray fits. The energy-underestimate claim, while suggestive, also depends on an extrapolation of a power-law continuum below the observed wavelength range.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.3.4, Fig. 9] The derivation of A_V ≈ 1.14 mag from Hα/Hβ ≈ 4 assumes a single foreground dust screen with a fixed intrinsic Balmer ratio, but the observed ratio rises from ≈4 to ≈5 over ~1.5 yr (Table 2); a fixed screen predicts a constant observed ratio, so the line ratio is tracking changing line-emitting conditions rather than a stable extinction. In addition, the dereddened SED is not an improvement: the power-law fit for AT 2022fpx degrades from χ²/dof = 0.34 to 2.18 between Figure 9a and 9b, and the paper does not discuss this degradation. Because this correction is what converts AT 2022fpx from red to blue and anchors the selection-effect claim, the dust interpretation needs stronger support before it can be used to generalize to the TDE population.
  2. [§4.3.4, Section 5] The abstract's statement that the blue color criterion can filter out TDEs 'severely contaminated by prominent emission lines (especially Hα)' is contradicted by the paper's own estimate in §4.3.4 that emission-line contamination reddens g−r by at most ~0.2 mag, whereas the observed red color is g−r ≈ 0.4. The Hα-contamination channel therefore cannot explain the observed color and should not be presented as a mechanism through which the selection effect operates.
  3. [§4.3.4, Fig. 9, Table 1] The claim that blackbody-based energies for optical-UV-bright, X-ray-faint TDEs are systematically lower than the 'intrinsic' energy assumes that the power-law form f_λ ∝ λ^{−α} with α ≈ 2–3 continues shortward of the observed ~2000 Å limit. Without data below ~2000 Å, a high-temperature blackbody peaking below the observed window is not excluded by the fits; for AT 2018dyb and AT 2019azh the blackbody reduced χ² values (0.74 and 0.67) are acceptable, so the model comparison is not decisive for all four sources. The energy conclusion should be explicitly conditioned on the power-law extrapolation and on the assumed integration range.
  4. [§5, §4.4.3] The family-level selection-effect claim is extrapolated from a single source whose classification is left ambiguous, with the authors stating that a turn-on AGN flare and a heavily dust-attenuated TDE are equally possible. If the Balmer-decrement dust correction is not valid, the observational anchor for the dust-reddened-TDE family disappears, and the paper is left with one intrinsically red nuclear transient of unknown nature. A population-level test, or at minimum a systematic reanalysis of existing optical TDE samples for Balmer-decrement-selected extinction, is needed before claiming that the selection effect is 'imprinted on the whole optical TDE family.'
  5. [Table 1] The X-ray spectral fits include only Galactic absorption (N_H = 1.24×10^20 cm^-2), yet the adopted A_V ≈ 1.14 mag with a standard gas-to-dust ratio implies N_H ≈ 2×10^21 cm^-2 along the line of sight. Adding an intrinsic absorber to the X-ray models would provide an independent test of the same dust screen; the absence of this test weakens the dust-reddening interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states T_bb increases by ~40–110% for the four TDEs, while §4.3.4 reports AT 2022fpx itself shows a ~209% increase; the abstract should clarify that the quoted range refers only to the comparison sample.
  2. [§4.3.4, Conclusion] The abstract says 'we do find that the blue color criterion can filter out' dusty and line-contaminated TDEs, while the conclusion uses the more cautious 'can probably exclude.' The wording should be aligned to avoid overstating the result.
  3. [§1] The phrase 'full wavelength half maxima' should be 'full width at half maximum' (FWHM).
  4. [Fig. 9 caption] The 10% systematic flux error added to all measurements is mentioned only in the figure caption; it should be introduced in the data analysis section so that the fitting procedure is self-contained.
  5. [§3.2.2] The sentence 'The result again shows the UV excess towards the optical power-law model' is unclear; it should specify whether the power-law index increases or decreases when UV bands are added, and in which direction this indicates an excess.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's fits are labeled as fits, the dust correction is a consistency check rather than a forced prediction, and the selection-effect claim is explicitly conditional.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, each load-bearing step is either an openly labeled fit, an independent model comparison, or a hedged inference. (1) The Balmer-decrement dust correction in Section 4.3.4 derives A_V ~ 1.14 mag from the observed H-alpha/H-beta ratio (~4) and an assumed case-B intrinsic ratio (2.62), then applies that independently derived correction to the SED and checks whether the color becomes blue. A_V is not chosen to force g-r<0, so the 'blue after correction' result is a consistency test, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. (2) The blackbody-versus-power-law conclusion is a reduced-chi-square model comparison on AT 2022fpx and four archival TDEs with publicly available photometry. T_bb and alpha are reported as best-fit parameters, and the statement that blackbody-derived energies are underestimated is a mathematical consequence of adopting the better-fitting power-law model, not an input to the model selection. (3) The family-level selection-effect claim is explicitly conditional: the paper states 'we still cannot confirm whether the red color is intrinsic' and concludes that a turn-on AGN flare and a heavily dust-attenuated TDE are 'equally possible.' A conditional possibility is not a self-fulfilling derivation. The self-citation to Lin & Yan (2024) for the emission-line extinction law is a standard methodological reference and is not load-bearing; removing it would not alter the logical structure. The skeptic's objections -- the rising H-alpha/H-beta ratio over time, the worsened reduced chi-square after dereddening, and the absence of an intrinsic X-ray absorption component -- are concerns about evidence quality and assumption validity, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is presented as an independent prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The family-level claims, selection bias in the blue-color criterion and underestimated TDE energies, rest on four publicly observed TDEs plus one transient whose classification the paper explicitly leaves open. The key inputs drawn from prior literature are the case B intrinsic Balmer ratio, a Milky Way-style extinction law applied to a circumnuclear environment, and the assumption that the fitted power law continues shortward of 2000 Angstroms; none is independently validated here, and the paper's own dereddened fits are not better than the originals. No new physical entities are introduced: the pre-existing weak AGN is inferred from archival MIR variability, and the dust-reddened TDE is an interpretation, not a new object class.

free parameters (4)
  • Systematic flux error added to SED photometry = 10%
    Applied to all measurements in Figure 9 before computing reduced chi-square; this choice directly affects whether power-law or blackbody models are favored.
  • Balmer-decrement dust extinction A_V = 1.14 mag (from Hα/Hβ = 4)
    Section 4.3.4: A_V is converted from the observed line ratio using an assumed case B intrinsic ratio of 2.62 and the Fitzpatrick (1999) R_V = 3.1 law. The value is measured, but applying it to the whole SED is an assumption.
  • g-band rise and decline timescales (Equation 1) = sigma = 41.5 d, tau = 296 d
    Fitted to the masked g-band light curve in Section 3.2.2; used to argue the rise is about 4 times longer than the Huang et al. (2023) sigma-M_BH relation predicts, supporting the giant-star TDE scenario.
  • Early-epoch SED fit parameters = T_bb and alpha fixed to third-epoch values
    Figures 4 and 8: the first two epochs have only one-band photometry, so temperature and power-law index are fixed to the third-epoch best fit; the choice is not propagated into uncertainties.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Case B recombination with T_e = 10^4 K and n_e = 10^9 cm^-3 gives an intrinsic Hα/Hβ ratio of 2.62 for the line-emitting gas.
    Section 4.3.4 uses this to convert the observed Hα/Hβ ratio of about 4-5 into A_V of about 1.1-1.7 mag. The grid over T_e and n_e yields [2.61, 2.77], so the number is robust within case B, but case B itself assumes photoionized, optically thin gas, which may not hold for a dense broad-line region.
  • domain assumption The Fitzpatrick (1999) extinction law with R_V = 3.1 applies to the nuclear dust attenuating both the emission lines and the continuum.
    Section 4.3.4 adopts this law, following Lin & Yan (2024), to convert line ratios to A_V and then deredden the SED. Circumnuclear dust in a transient environment may have different grain properties than diffuse Milky Way dust.
  • domain assumption The optical-UV SED is part of a single X-ray-to-IR power-law component (per Dai et al. 2018), so the fitted power law can be extrapolated below 2000 Angstroms.
    Underpins the claims that TDE SEDs should peak at shorter wavelengths and that blackbody-based energies are underestimates. The paper has no data below about 2000 Angstroms rest-frame and does not test the extrapolation against X-ray limits.
  • domain assumption The four comparison TDEs (AT 2018dyb, AT 2019azh, AT 2019dsg, AT 2019qiz) are representative of the optically-selected TDE family.
    Section 4.3.4 generalizes from these four, chosen for high-cadence Swift UV coverage, with AT 2019ahk excluded for host Seyfert features. Availability-based selection may bias the inferred SED shapes.
  • domain assumption The g-band light curve decline follows the t^-5/3 fallback scaling in Equation 1.
    Section 3.2.2 fits the rise and decline with a Gaussian rise and a t^-5/3 decay to derive t_1/2 timescales for comparison with the ZTF TDE sample; the plateau after t_turn breaks this law, and the precursor is masked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Insights from the "Red devil" AT 2022fpx: A Dust-reddened Family of Tidal Disruption Events Excluded by Their Apparent Red Color?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JRM7E7QR

@misc{pith2026250704834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Insights from the "Red devil" AT 2022fpx: A Dust-reddened Family of Tidal Disruption Events Excluded by Their Apparent Red Color?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JRM7E7QR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04834}
}
abstract

We report unnoticed but intriguing features in the peculiar nuclear transient AT 2022fpx, and investigate its type. These features include the constantly red optical color of $g-r>0$, a stable soft X-ray flare ($kT\sim100$ eV) in the past $\sim$550 days, a prominent mid-infrared echo peaked at $\sim$$10^{43.3}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and the confirmation of a weak active galactic nucleus by weak flares in pre-event Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer mid-infrared light curves with no contemporary optical, radio or X-ray counterparts. The combination of the optical red color and possible origin of a tidal disruption event (TDE) of AT 2022fpx is particularly attractive, as it challenges the most widely accepted and adopted "blue color" criterion for optical TDE selection. Although we still cannot confirm whether the red color is intrinsic, we do find that the "blue color" criterion can filter out normal TDEs whose optical-UV spectral energy distributions (SEDs) are either severely contaminated by prominent emission lines (especially H$\alpha$) or heavily dust-reddened. Hence, its potential selection effect may have been imprinted on the whole optical TDE family. Blackbody fitting on the optical (rest-frame $\sim$$4000-7000$ \AA) and optical-UV ($\sim$$2000-7000$ \AA) SEDs of four TDEs with high-cadence UV observations shows that $T_\mathrm{bb}$ rise by $\sim$40$-$110 \% when the UV bands are included. The power-law models ($f_{\lambda}\propto\lambda^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha=2-3$) can fit the rest-frame $\sim$$2000-7000$ \AA SEDs more consistently, indicating that SEDs should peak at shorter wavelengths, but not simple blackbodies. Hence, the estimated released energy for the optical-UV bright but X-ray faint TDEs based on blackbody SED fitting should be significantly lower than the intrinsic energy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04834 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: The Galactic-extinction-corrected differential light curves of AT 2022fpx. For non-detections, 3σ upper limits are plotted in down triangles. The dates that spectra were taken are shown in vertical lines. The gray dashed line shows the best fit of g-band light curve to the rise-decline function (Equation 1). The inset is a zoom-in view of the very early stage in which a spiky precursor can be clearly reve… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: The best-fit CIGALE model on the host-galaxy SED yields a perfect match with reduced χ 2 = 0.31. Right panel: The synthetic magnitudes of six UVOT bands (UVW2, UVM2, UVW1, U, B, V). subtracted images reveals that both the W1 and W2 bands show weak but clear enhancement in two early epochs of the NEOWISE project, indicating AGN activity inside, while its intensity is constrained by the lack of optical cou… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The pre-peak light curves of the position of AT 2022fpx. Top and middle panel: Differential g-, r-, c- and o-band light curves and non-subtracted V- and R-band light curves. To improve the SNR, for each band, we combine the data into 30-day bins; Bottom panel: MIR bands W1 and W2. We utilize the unWISE stacked images of each epoch, employ PSF photometry after subtracting the image of the first epoch. Two small flare… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The fitting results for UV and optical photometric data. The optical bands are g, r, c, o, while UV bands are UVW2, UVM2, UVW1, U. The details for the fitting are introduced in Section 3.2.2. Left: The blackbody luminosity Lbb, temperature Tbb and radius Rbb. Since the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Swift XRT stacked images and spectra confirm an ultra-soft X-ray source. In panel (a) and (b), the stacked images of all epochs are shown, in which the source region is represented by the yellow circle with a radius of 20′′, and the background region is represented by …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panel: All optical spectra. The black line represents the best modeled spectrum by CIGALE (See Section 3.1 for details). Telluric absorption regions are marked in light gray. Each date stamp shows the rest-frame time difference between the optical peak (MJD ∼ 59795…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The spectral comparison between AT 2022fpx and a set of transients that share similarities: A typical TDE AT 2019qiz; Two outbursts in NLSy1 galaxies, AT 2019brs and AT 2019fdr; An outburst in a LINER galaxy, AT 2018dyk; A turn-on AGN SDSS1335+0728; A turn-on AGN/TDE c…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The fitting results for UV and optical photometric data after a host extinction correction of AV ∼ 1.14 mag. Left: The blackbody luminosity Lbb, temperature Tbb and radius Rbb. Since the first two epochs only have one band photometry, their blackbody temperatures are f…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The rest-frame SEDs around the peak and the best-fit blackbody (BB) and power-law (PL) profiles for AT 2022fpx and four TDEs with high-cadence Swift observations. UV bands are defined as bands with rest-frame wavelength <4000 Å, while others are defined as optical band…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The temporal evolution of the blackbody temperature and power-law index for AT 2022fpx and four TDEs with high-cadence Swift observations. consistent with a heavily dust-attenuated outburst that peaks at ∼ 1045 erg s−1 . • The extreme iron coronal emission lines are c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Two Earliest Optical-UV Tidal Disruption Events Hidden in the SDSS DR7 Catalog Unveiled by the Transformer-Based Spectrum Classifier

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PCA-Transformer spectrum classifier recovers two new optical-UV TDEs from SDSS DR7, including the earliest known with occurrence before MJD 52316.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    1996, A&A, 309, L35

    Bade, N., Komossa, S., & Dahlem, M. 1996, A&A, 309, L35

    1996

  3. [3]

    K., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al

    Blanchard, P. K., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa77f7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa77f7 2017

  4. [4]

    N., & Fink, H

    Boller, T., Brandt, W. N., & Fink, H. 1996, A&A, 305, 53, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9504093

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9504093 1996

  5. [5]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  6. [6]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6989

    Bricman, K., & Gomboc, A. 2020, ApJ, 890, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6989

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6989 2020

  7. [7]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Irwin, C

    Chandra, P., Chevalier, R. A., Irwin, C. M., et al. 2012, ApJL, 750, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/1/L2

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, A&A, 673, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245065

    Charalampopoulos, P., Pursiainen, M., Leloudas, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245065

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.04080, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.04080

    Clark, P., Callow, J., Graur, O., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.04080, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.04080

    2025 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2014, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/328

    2014

  6. [14]

    C., Roth, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Miller, M

    Dai, L., McKinney, J. C., Roth, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Miller, M. C. 2018, ApJL, 859, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Helou, G., Magdis, G

    Dale, D. A., Helou, G., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/83

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530

    2007 doi

  10. [19]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a72

    Faris, S., Arcavi, I., Makrygianni, L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a72

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    1999 doi

  12. [21]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    D., Filippenko, A

    Fox, O. D., Filippenko, A. V ., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/1/2

    2013 doi

  14. [23]

    J., et al

    Fransson, C., Ergon, M., Challis, P. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/118

    2014 doi

  15. [24]

    J., et al

    Frederick, S., Gezari, S., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a38

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    J., et al

    Frederick, S., Gezari, S., Graham, M. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac110f

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    B., & Arcavi, I

    Gezari, S., Cenko, S. B., & Arcavi, I. 2017a, ApJL, 851, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa0c2

    doi

  18. [28]

    B., et al

    Gezari, S., Hung, T., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2017c, ApJ, 835, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/144

    doi

  19. [29]

    A., et al

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V . A., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab761

    2018 doi

  20. [30]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    Guolo, M., Gezari, S., Yao, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    2024 doi

  21. [31]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al

    Hammerstein, E., van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2023 doi

  22. [32]

    T., Holoien, T

    Hinkle, J. T., Holoien, T. W. S., Auchettl, K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1673, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3170

    2021 doi

  23. [33]

    Ho, A. Y . Q., Yao, Y ., Matsumoto, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.07885, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.07885

    2025 doi

  24. [34]

    Holoien, T. W. S., Vallely, P. J., Auchettl, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c66

    2019 doi

  25. [35]

    Holoien, T. W. S., Auchettl, K., Tucker, M. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f3d

    2020 doi

  26. [36]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 4057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2541

    Huang, S., Jiang, N., Lin, Z., Zhu, J., & Wang, T. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2541

    2023 doi

  27. [37]

    2024, ApJL, 964, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319f Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S

    Huang, S., Jiang, N., Zhu, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 964, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319f Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 21

    2024 doi

  28. [38]

    Jiang, N., Luo, D., Zhu, J., & Cutri, R. M. 2025, ApJL, 980, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaeb9

    2025 doi

  29. [39]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe772

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Hu, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe772

    2021 doi

  30. [40]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b2

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Mou, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b2

    2019 doi

  31. [41]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Jin, C., Ward, M., Done, C., & Gelbord, J. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    2012

  32. [42]

    Koljonen, K. I. I., Liodakis, I., Lindfors, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1466

    2024 doi

  33. [43]

    2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 148, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.04.006

    Komossa, S. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 148, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.04.006

    2015 doi

  34. [44]

    1999, A&A, 343, 775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9901141

    Komossa, S., & Bade, N. 1999, A&A, 343, 775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9901141

    1999 doi arXiv

  35. [45]

    2008, ApJL, 678, L13, doi: 10.1086/588281

    Komossa, S., Zhou, H., Wang, T., et al. 2008, ApJL, 678, L13, doi: 10.1086/588281

    2008 doi

  36. [46]

    2009, ApJ, 701, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/105 Kozłowski, S., Kochanek, C

    Komossa, S., Zhou, H., Rau, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/105 Kozłowski, S., Kochanek, C. S., Stern, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1624, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1624

    2009 doi

  37. [47]

    P., Burrows, D

    Kraft, R. P., Burrows, D. N., & Nousek, J. A. 1991, ApJ, 374, 344, doi: 10.1086/170124

    1991 doi

  38. [48]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  39. [49]

    2017, ApJ, 841, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ffb

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, ApJ, 841, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ffb

    2017 doi

  40. [50]

    2022a, MNRAS, 513, 2422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac946

    Lin, Z., Jiang, N., & Kong, X. 2022a, MNRAS, 513, 2422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac946

    doi

  41. [51]

    2022b, ApJL, 939, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9c63

    Lin, Z., Jiang, N., Kong, X., et al. 2022b, ApJL, 939, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9c63

    doi

  42. [52]

    2024, A&A, 691, A201, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451339

    Lin, Z., & Yan, R. 2024, A&A, 691, A201, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451339

    2024 doi

  43. [53]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33a9

    Liu, X.-L., Dou, L.-M., Chen, J.-H., & Shen, R.-F. 2022, ApJ, 925, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33a9

    2022 doi

  44. [55]

    Luridiana, V ., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2015, A&A, 573, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323152

    2015 doi

  45. [56]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134

    MacLeod, M., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2012, ApJ, 757, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134

    2012 doi

  46. [57]

    2011, ApJ, 731, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Grav, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53

    2011 doi

  47. [58]

    M., et al

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Cutri, R. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30

    2014 doi

  48. [59]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace1ee

    Makrygianni, L., Trakhtenbrot, B., Arcavi, I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace1ee

    2023 doi

  49. [60]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  50. [61]

    M., Lang, D., & Schlegel, D

    Meisner, A. M., Lang, D., & Schlegel, D. J. 2018, AJ, 156, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aacbcd

    2018 doi

  51. [62]

    A., Silverman, J

    Miller, A. A., Silverman, J. M., Butler, N. R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 305, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16280.x

    2010

  52. [63]

    2013, The Physics and Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei

    Netzer, H. 2013, The Physics and Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei

    2013

  53. [64]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 230, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaf799

    Nicholl, M. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 230, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaf799

    2018 doi

  54. [65]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 5604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2206

    Nicholl, M., Lanning, D., Ramsden, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2206

    2022 doi

  55. [66]

    R., et al

    Nicholl, M., Wevers, T., Oates, S. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 482, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2824

    2020 doi

  56. [67]

    2020, A&A, 637, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936097

    Nyholm, A., Sollerman, J., Tartaglia, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936097

    2020 doi

  57. [68]

    Oke, J. B. 1974, ApJS, 27, 21, doi: 10.1086/190287

    1974 doi

  58. [69]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1982, PASP, 94, 586, doi: 10.1086/131027

    1982 doi

  59. [70]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  60. [71]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 151, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/151

    Palaversa, L., Gezari, S., Sesar, B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 151, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/151

    2016 doi

  61. [72]

    R., Cenko, S

    Pasham, D. R., Cenko, S. B., Sadowski, A., et al. 2017, ApJL, 837, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6003

    2017 doi

  62. [73]

    J., et al

    Perez-Fournon, I., Poidevin, F., Angel, C. J., et al. 2022, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-1771, 1 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Ashdown, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629022

    2022 doi

  63. [74]

    S., Chand, H., & Zhang, X.-G

    Rakshit, S., Stalin, C. S., Chand, H., & Zhang, X.-G. 2017, ApJS, 229, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6971

    2017 doi

  64. [75]

    E., & V olonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & V olonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    2015 doi

  65. [76]

    J., Gezari, S., et al

    Rest, A., Foley, R. J., Gezari, S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/88

    2011 doi

  66. [77]

    J., et al

    Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa96ad

    2017 doi

  67. [78]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    2005 doi

  68. [79]

    B., & Mushotzky, R

    Roth, N., van Velzen, S., Cenko, S. B., & Mushotzky, R. F. 2021, ApJ, 910, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdf50 Sánchez-Sáez, P., Hernández-García, L., Bernal, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347957

    2021 doi

  69. [80]

    Saxton, R., Komossa, S., Auchettl, K., & Jonker, P. G. 2020, SSRv, 216, 85, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00708-4

    2020 doi

  70. [81]

    F., Meisner, A

    Schlafly, E. F., Meisner, A. M., & Green, G. M. 2019, ApJS, 240, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aafbea

    2019 doi

  71. [82]

    W., Young, D

    Shingles, L., Smith, K. W., Young, D. R., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7, 1

    2021

  72. [83]

    2020, Nature Communications, 11, 5876, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19675-z 22

    Shu, X., Zhang, W., Li, S., et al. 2020, Nature Communications, 11, 5876, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19675-z 22

    2020 doi

  73. [84]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  74. [85]

    J., Benford, D

    Stern, D., Assef, R. J., Benford, D. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/30

    2012 doi

  75. [86]

    C., & Metzger, B

    Stone, N. C., & Metzger, B. D. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 859, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2281

    2016 doi

  76. [87]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/173

    Stritzinger, M., Taddia, F., Fransson, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/173

    2012 doi

  77. [88]

    E., & Quataert, E

    Strubbe, L. E., & Quataert, E. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2070, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15599.x

    2009

  78. [89]

    D., Pejcha, O., & Müller, T

    Szalai, T., Zsíros, S., Fox, O. D., Pejcha, O., & Müller, T. 2019, ApJS, 241, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab10df

    2019 doi

  79. [90]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 4042, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1970

    Thorp, S., Chadwick, E., & Sesana, A. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4042, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1970

    2019 doi

  80. [91]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 242, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0661-3 van Velzen, S., Farrar, G

    Trakhtenbrot, B., Arcavi, I., Ricci, C., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 242, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0661-3 van Velzen, S., Farrar, G. R., Gezari, S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/73 van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Hammerstein, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 9...

    2019 doi

  81. [92]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 2943, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty465

    Wang, T., Yan, L., Dou, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2943, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty465

    2018 doi

  82. [93]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 109512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    Wang, T., Liu, G., Cai, Z., et al. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 109512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    2023 doi

  83. [94]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/85

    Wang, T.-G., Zhou, H.-Y ., Wang, L.-F., Lu, H.-L., & Xu, D. 2011, ApJ, 740, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/85

    2011 doi

  84. [95]

    2022a, ApJL, 930, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6670

    Wang, Y ., Jiang, N., Wang, T., et al. 2022a, ApJL, 930, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6670

    doi

  85. [96]

    2022b, ApJS, 258, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33a6

    Wang, Y ., Jiang, N., Wang, T., et al. 2022b, ApJS, 258, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33a6

    doi

  86. [97]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.12015, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.12015

    Wang, Y ., Wang, T., Jiang, N., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.12015, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.12015

    2023 doi arXiv

  87. [98]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ae4

    Wang, Y ., Wang, T., Jiang, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ae4

    2024 doi

  88. [99]

    Z., Magnier, E

    Waters, C. Z., Magnier, E. A., Price, P. A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82b

    2020 doi

  89. [100]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  90. [101]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab074b

    Yan, L., Wang, T., Jiang, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab074b

    2019 doi

  91. [102]

    2013, ApJ, 774, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/46

    Yang, C.-W., Wang, T.-G., Ferland, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/46

    2013 doi

  92. [103]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    Yao, Y ., Ravi, V ., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    2023 doi

  93. [104]

    2012, PASP, 124, 668, doi: 10.1086/666656

    Yaron, O., & Gal-Yam, A. 2012, PASP, 124, 668, doi: 10.1086/666656

    2012 doi

  94. [105]

    2021, SSRv, 217, 54, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00829-4

    Zabludoff, A., Arcavi, I., LaMassa, S., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 54, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00829-4

    2021 doi

  95. [106]

    2012, AJ, 144, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/131

    Zhang, T., Wang, X., Wu, C., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/131

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.